SUPERDELEGATES
nan said:
This is one of only two major political parties in our country. All of our leaders come from either this party or the Republicans. If they want to have that much effect on our democracy, they should not be some closed elitist club. Also, they should want to win. It seems they care more about pleasing their donors than even winning. I have no idea why the took the time to pass this rule, or what it is about, but there are so many things they should be spending time on that they just reject. Would not be surprised if they finally collapse and get replaced by a new group.
Total non-answer, as usual for your BS diatribes. WHY is it wrong for a private political organization to require membership in the organization, if you want the organization's support and endorsement? That's the question, not your diarrhea of the brain.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:Total non-answer, as usual for your BS diatribes. WHY is it wrong for a private political organization to require membership in the organization, if you want the organization's support and endorsement? That's the question, not your diarrhea of the brain.
This is one of only two major political parties in our country. All of our leaders come from either this party or the Republicans. If they want to have that much effect on our democracy, they should not be some closed elitist club. Also, they should want to win. It seems they care more about pleasing their donors than even winning. I have no idea why the took the time to pass this rule, or what it is about, but there are so many things they should be spending time on that they just reject. Would not be surprised if they finally collapse and get replaced by a new group.
Stop with the personal attacks. It is wrong to have a private political organization, funded by billionaires, picking the candidates and telling them how to vote. They accept Democrats who support Trump, so why should they have a problem with an Independent who is modeled on FDR? I don't know what you mean by "require membership in the organization" because it's not clear what that entails. It is not the same as just filling out a form.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:Total non-answer, as usual for your BS diatribes. WHY is it wrong for a private political organization to require membership in the organization, if you want the organization's support and endorsement? That's the question, not your diarrhea of the brain.
This is one of only two major political parties in our country. All of our leaders come from either this party or the Republicans. If they want to have that much effect on our democracy, they should not be some closed elitist club. Also, they should want to win. It seems they care more about pleasing their donors than even winning. I have no idea why the took the time to pass this rule, or what it is about, but there are so many things they should be spending time on that they just reject. Would not be surprised if they finally collapse and get replaced by a new group.
What does membership in the organization entail?
Is it possible that membership in the organization means that the candidate/nominee must adhere to the policies promulgated by large donors?
nan said:
dave23 said:Don't think this is about that. Obama left the DNC in debt, which is why they had the secret deal with Hillary for the nomination. So, paying dues and inheriting work done by others sounds like something written on a brochure somewhere. It's all about supporting the donors who own the politicians. They don't want nominees who are not beholden to the donors.
nan said:Shocker that a club would demand that members pay dues and not simply inherit the work done by others.
'Slap in the Face' to Progressive Outsiders as DNC Adopts Rule Forcing Presidential Candidates to Be Members of Democratic Party
I was, of course, using "dues" figuratively. You hate the Democratic machine. I get that. I remain confused as to why you are so eager to have that machine accept outsiders into the fold in order to utilize it.
RealityForAll said:...
Is it possible that membership in the organization means that the candidate/nominee must adhere to the policies promulgated by large donors?
In the case of the Dems, you are supposing a message discipline which is basically unheard of among Democrats. That's kind of their problem.
As far as I have ever seen, the only time the party gets involved in message is during the drafting of the party platform at the convention - where the Prez candidate has great sway over its direction.
Downticket Dems have traditionally been granted great leeway in how they run their campaigns. Elected Dems are all over the place on issues. There's nothing in this rule which says this will change.
The only people who are up in arms over it are the people who still think Hillary bought her nomination and that Bernie was unfairly deprived of the nomination.
In ways never actually explained.
I do not buy that independents are the largest group. Many people who call themselves independents rarely vote as a true independent. most consistently vote with one party. I would guess less than 15% of the population actually people who vote as an independent and will vote for whom they feel is the better candidate.
And I do not know of any organization that allows non-members to participate in voting for their leadership.
RealityForAll said:
What does membership in the organization entail?
I believe that membership in the Democratic or Republican Parties means nothing other than simply declaring oneself to be a member, or in States where voters can designate a Party when registering to vote doing so.
The Democratic and Republican Parties are not really membership organizations where someone is required to join by filling out an application and paying dues.
In New York City, where I learned politics a long time ago, sometimes parties cross-endorsed candidates. In other words a "Member" of the Democratic Party could run as the candidate of both the Democratic and Republican Parties or a combination of other parties.
If I recall correctly Rudolph Giuliani was elected Mayor as the candidate of the Republican and Liberal Parties.
Without the proposed rule change that is being discussed Donald Trump could run for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020.
How interesting that one can speak of "purity tests" and exclusion of competing points of view with respect to the Democratic Party when the Republican Party has become "The Party of Trump" , a cult of personality based on loyalty to one person.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/trump-republicans-sanford-resistance-644721
Mark Sanford, a long-time conservative Republican official was defeated for re-election in a Primary because he voiced a few criticisms of Trump, who then attacked him in a tweet and endorsed his opponent. That opponent actually stated that the GOP is "The Party of Trump" and the duty of members is to support Trump.
And in other news a brothel owner in Nevada won a Republican Primary as a follower of Trump, the winner of the GOP nomination for Senator from Virginia has associated with open antisemitesand white supremists and Congressman Steve King has re-tweeted a British Nazi.
PVW said:
Morganna said:I don't know. For me the overall goal is to try to get a nominee that, to the best extent possible, is the person the majority of party voters support. Do you get a more accurate measurement of this by doing all the voting at once, or is it better to stagger it so that the candidates have to spend time introducing themselves (and, hopefully, learning from the voters)? The ideal system strives for an accurate count, but also strives to increase engagement and enthusiasm across the whole party, both from the candidates and the voters.
What are your thoughts about the need to push NY, NJ and CA into an earlier spot in the primaries?
Now that I write this out, I'm thinking having votes spread out over time is better, but I'm not sure what the optimal ordering would be.
The problem with the current system is that the states with the greatest populations have no say. We are at the end of the line when all of the opposing candidates have dropped out. The needs of those states with large urban populations are different from those of more rural areas.
In the Republican Primaries, 16 candidates had dropped out by the time NY, NJ and CA could vote. Most had run out of money. Rural American chose Trump.
If those 3 states were out front, perhaps Bernie would have had a better chance.
So to me the only fair system is one primary day. And no super delegates.
Having only one primary day is not fair to the candidates. Right now most of the candidates make it to almost every state and participate in all kinds of rallies and fund raisers, etc. Perhaps a regional system might work better (and shorten the whole process). No matter what, no system is perfect and if it was a very close battle, then we would want to be closer to the end of the primaries to cast the deciding votes.
I have had the debate about Bernie with many people but I think in the end he started too late and did not have enough volunteers in many states. Clinton learned her lessons from when she lost to Obama and did not make the same mistakes. She had staff in all 50 states. That is needed in the primaries.
What I think hurts is that the delegates in states that a democrat is more than likely to lose can be the deciding factor in the primaries (and Clinton took advantage of that). I seem to remember (although have not checked) is that Sanders won most of the blue states and several swing states and Clinton cleaned up in the red states. not sure there is any solution to that problem (and of course same issue for republicans ).
If we could tear down the entire system and start from scratch I'd have a much shortened campaign season as in other countries. I'd have a nationwide Primary in September with either run-offs or weighted voting and then the General in November, or even move everything to the Spring.
Maybe the parties should schedule the primary elections based upon how each state supported the party's candidate in the prior general election. In other words, the state that provided the greatest percentage of that state's vote for the Democratic nominee in the most recent presidential election would be hold the first primary election.
Steve said:
Maybe the parties should schedule the primary elections based upon how each state supported the party's candidate in the prior general election. In other words, the state that provided the greatest percentage of that state's vote for the Democratic nominee in the most recent presidential election would be hold the first primary election.
The parties have some leverage they can use, but don’t the individual states determine when their primaries are held?
Yes, but I suspect that if the parties were to use their "leverage," it might get some traction (with the exceptions of Iowa and New Hampshire).
if parties are going to exert pressure on other states it should be to move their primaries later, not move ours earlier. We choose statewide and local candidates at the same time. Do we really want to be choosing TC candidates in January or February? Or candidates for governor? I think the campaigns are already long enough when candidates are chosen in June.
I wholeheartedly agree with having a shorter and later primary election season. I was merely speaking about the order in which the various states would have their respective primary elections. Of course, NJ could do as NY does and hold a separate Presidential Primary Election separate and apart from Congressional, state, and local primary elections.
Steve said:
Yes, but I suspect that if the parties were to use their "leverage," it might get some traction (with the exceptions of Iowa and New Hampshire).
Having a very early primary disadvantages voters. Later on more information may come out which can lead to regret.
Primary season should be less than three months. July, August, September beginning, with the national conventions at end of September.
National parties can use their leverage by disallowing primaries done before June. The rule would be primaries done subsequent to June are not valid. Their primary delegates cannot be admitted to convention.
Unlikely that it could be that late for a number of reasons, not the least of which you don't want it to conflict with an NFL game. But seriously, Summer elections typically produce a lower turnout and UOCAVA (as amended by the MOVE Act) mandates that ballots for federal office be mailed out not less than 45 days prior to the election. That typically requires that those ballots go out at least one week prior to the end of September. It takes time to produce and prepare those ballots for mailing. I would suggest that the primary season run from April to June (or even just May to June) with conventions over the Summer.
In this day and age the primary season should be shorter and I doubt the turnout would be that much lower if held over the summer (evidence either way?). I would rather do away with the conventions which are now just 3 days of party bs. Nothing substantial happens at them anymore. Reruns of Lassie are more exciting than the political conventions.
mikescott said:
Having only one primary day is not fair to the candidates. Right now most of the candidates make it to almost every state and participate in all kinds of rallies and fund raisers, etc. Perhaps a regional system might work better (and shorten the whole process). No matter what, no system is perfect and if it was a very close battle, then we would want to be closer to the end of the primaries to cast the deciding votes.
I have had the debate about Bernie with many people but I think in the end he started too late and did not have enough volunteers in many states. Clinton learned her lessons from when she lost to Obama and did not make the same mistakes. She had staff in all 50 states. That is needed in the primaries.
What I think hurts is that the delegates in states that a democrat is more than likely to lose can be the deciding factor in the primaries (and Clinton took advantage of that). I seem to remember (although have not checked) is that Sanders won most of the blue states and several swing states and Clinton cleaned up in the red states. not sure there is any solution to that problem (and of course same issue for republicans ).
In the Republican contest, serious candidates dropped out before they hit NY, NJ and CA. Trump was picked before we got to vote so later is not in most cases the deciding vote.
In the Democratic contest, Bernie was too far behind to catch up by the time we got to vote.
Seems that the middle states have the most leverage in this system.
Give every candidate a chance to campaign and fundraise, then pick the date and may the best candidate win.
the issue is more complicated than just picking a date, and I think having one primary day would mean only the candidates with billions could run. I do not think Obama would have been able to build up the momentum he did with a single primary day. Might not be perfect system but a single primary day would have it's disadvantages.
mikescott said:
the issue is more complicated than just picking a date, and I think having one primary day would mean only the candidates with billions could run. I do not think Obama would have been able to build up the momentum he did with a single primary day. Might not be perfect system but a single primary day would have it's disadvantages.
Compressing the calendar into a few regional primaries would be the best solution I think. Candidates can manage their costs by staying on one area before moving to the next - instead of traveling willy-nilly across the country.
But I do think the major population centers should be moved up in the calendar. It's kind of crazy that the most populous states are given the least amount of influence. And places like NH and Iowa are turned into kingmakers.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Advertisement
It was a problem in 2016...Lack of Democratic commitment split peoples allegiance. This rule tries to clean that up.